[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5720E860.10400@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:27:12 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...il.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@...b.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>, Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v3] perf core: Allow setting up max frame stack depth
via sysctl
On 4/27/16 10:09 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>> I first thought that this should be a tunable per event instead of a global sysctl
>>
>> Yeah, I'll work on that too.
>
> There is no rush though. The sysfs limit will probably be enough for most users. Unless
> someone requested it?
>
I have. I spent time last winter (2015) looking into how to do it. The
userspace syntax was more of a pain than passing the parameters to the
kernel side as the intent is to specify N kernel frames and M user frames.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists